Law Commons^™

Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond

Maine Law Review

In State v. Wright, 1 the State of Minnesota charged David Wright with possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of second-degree assault against his girlfriend and her sister. A jury found Wright guilty on all charges and sentenced him to sixty months in jail for each crime, with sentences served concurrently. Wright’s girlfriend, R.R., and her sister, S.R., did not testify against him at trial. The prosecution, however, used the transcript of a 911 call placed by R.R. against Wright in the trial. Although the 911 call was hearsay, the court admitted it under Minnesota’s excited …

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right: Federal Death Eligibility Determinations And Judicial Trifurcations, Michael D. Pepson, John N. Sharifi

Akron Law Review

Broadly speaking, the purpose of this article is to bring attention to this radical and irreconcilable disparity between the unequivocal Sixth Amendment right of confrontation criminal defendants are afforded at trial,and the limited, qualified right of confrontation the FDPA grants federal capital defendants during death-eligibility determinations, which occur as part of the sentencing phase. It advances the argument that there is no tenable principled distinction on which this disparate procedural treatment may rest. We will attempt to demonstrate that, as written, the statutory provision that governs the admission of evidence at capital sentencings—18 U.S.C. § 3593(c)—is unconstitutional on its face …

Finding Nino: Justice Scalia's Confrontation Clause Legacy From Its (Glorious) Beginning To (Bitter) End, Joëlle Anne Moreno Professor

Akron Law Review

Until very recently, Justice Scalia has steered the Court’s modern confrontation jurisprudence. However, as discussed below, his leadership is increasingly threatened by deep divisions on questions of historical accuracy, constitutional interpretation, and the practical realities of twenty-first century criminal prosecutions.

Death Penalty And The Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.

Admissibility Of Co-Conspirator Statements In A Post-Crawford World, Michael L. Seigel, Daniel Weisman

Michael L Seigel

This Article takes the position that co-conspirator statements must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are testimonial and thus subject to exclusion under the Confrontation Clause. Further, in light of the fact that the author of the majority opinions in Crawford and Davis was Justice Antonin Scalia, this Article examines whether interpreting the Sixth Amendment as a bar to the admission of certain coconspirator statements would violate an originalist interpretation of that provision. The conclusion reached is that it would not. In the current era of ever-narrowing rights for criminal defendants, reaffirming the law's commitment to …

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Death Penalty And The Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Family Court, Queens County, In Re German F. And Hector R., Angelique Hermanowski

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Queens County, People V. Tam, Elaine Yang

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Testimonial Is As Testimonial Does, Ben L. Trachtenberg

Faculty Publications

In December 2012, the Florida Law Review published Ben Trachtenberg’s article “Confronting Coventurers: Coconspirator Hearsay, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause,” 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1669 (2012). Using the example of hearsay admitted in criminal prosecutions related to the Holy Land Foundation, the article argued that under Crawford v. Washington, courts had begun admitting unreliable hearsay against criminal defendants that previously would have been barred under Ohio v. Roberts, the Confrontation Clause case upended by Crawford.

Richard D. Friedman, the Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, responded in “The Mold …

Confronting The Confrontation Clause: Addressing The Unanswered Question Of Whether Autopsy Reports Are Testimonial Evidence - People V. Hall, Bailey Ince

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Unappealing Decision For New York Dwi Defendants - People V. Pealer, Christopher Gavin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering Spousal Privileges After Crawford, R. Michael Cassidy

R. Michael Cassidy

In this article the author explores how domestic violence prevention efforts have been adversely impacted by the Supreme Court’s new “testimonial” approach to the confrontation clause. Examining the Court’s trilogy of cases from Crawford to Davis and Hammon, the author argues that the introduction of certain forms of hearsay in criminal cases has been drastically limited by the court’s new originalist approach to the Sixth Amendment. The author explains how state spousal privilege statutes often present a significant barrier to obtaining live testimony from victims of domestic violence. The author then argues that state legislatures should reconsider their spousal privilege …

A Defense Attorney’S Guide To Confrontation After Michigan V. Bryant, Kathryn K. Polonsky

Kathryn K Polonsky

In 1603, the Crown charged Sir Walter Raleigh with high treason in part for plotting to murder King James I. In preparing for trial, Lord Cobham, Raleigh’s alleged co-conspirator, was interrogated and signed a sworn confession. During trial, the King used the Crown-procured ex parte testimony of Cobham against Raleigh. Raleigh demanded Cobham be brought before the court so Raleigh might interrogate him “face to face.” Raleigh was sure Cobham would prove his innocence. After all, Cobham had written a letter stating his charges against Raleigh contained no truth.

The Judges refused to allow Raleigh the use of Cobham’s exonerating …

Admissibility Of Co-Conspirator Statements In A Post-Crawford World, Michael L. Seigel, Daniel Weisman

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article takes the position that co-conspirator statements must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are testimonial and thus subject to exclusion under the Confrontation Clause. Further, in light of the fact that the author of the majority opinions in Crawford and Davis was Justice Antonin Scalia, this Article examines whether interpreting the Sixth Amendment as a bar to the admission of certain coconspirator statements would violate an originalist interpretation of that provision. The conclusion reached is that it would not. In the current era of ever-narrowing rights for criminal defendants, reaffirming the law's commitment to …

Post-Crawford: Time To Liberalize The Substantive Admissibility Of A Testifying Witness's Prior Consistent Statements, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Tome v. United States has read Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) to prevent the prosecution's offering a child abuse victim's prior consistent statements as substantive evidence. As a result of that decision, the statements will also be inadmissible even for the limited purpose of helping to evaluate the credibility of a child, if there is a serious risk that the out-of-court statements would be used on the issue of guilt or innocence.

Moreover, after the Court's March 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington, which redesigned the landscape of Confrontation Clause analysis, other …

Originalism And Formalism In Criminal Procedure: The Triumph Of Justice Scalia, The Unlikely Friend Of Criminal Defendants?, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

In Crawford v. Washington, Justice Scalia's majority opinion reinterpreted the Confrontation Clause to exclude otherwise reliable testimonial hearsay unless the defendant has been able to cross-examine it. In Blakely v. Washington, Justice Scalia's majority opinion required that juries, not judges, find beyond a reasonable doubt all facts that trigger sentences above ordinary sentencing-guidelines ranges. Crawford and Blakely are prime case studies in the strengths, weaknesses, and influence of originalism and formalism in criminal procedure. Crawford succeeded because it cleared away muddled case law, laid a strong foundation in the historical record, and erected a simple, solid, workable rule. …